On Thursday evening, August 26, 2010 the Oldham County Board of Education, as expected, voted to raise the property tax by 2 cents per hundred dollars valuation which amounts to a 2.99% increase in the property tax. Oldham County already had one of the highest property tax rates in the state.
The Board increased the tax rate despite having eight million dollars ($8,000,000) in the contingency fund. I expect that the board is in much better financial condition than the average family in Oldham County. But then the average family cannot just take money whenever it wants to do so.
Voting for the tax increase was Kevin Woosley, Joyce Fletcher, Larry Dodson, and Jennifer Jones. Opposing the tax increase was Walt Schumm. I find the votes of two of these members to be very interesting. Kevin Woosley’s wife, Melanie Woosley, is a member of the LaGrange City Council and recently opposed the budget presented to the council by LaGrange Mayor Elsie Carter. Melanie Woosley was in favor of a more conservative budget and in the past has voted to reduce taxes. Why then, would her husband want to raise the taxes of everyone in the county? My question is, does Melanie Woosley just want to give the Mayor grief or is Kevin Woosley afraid to stand up to the superintendent of the Oldham County school district, Paul Upchurch? I have been around the Woosleys at several city council meetings and have listened to both of them address the city council. I always believed that they spoke with virtually one voice.
Then we have Larry Dodson who at the time he ran for office stated to me that he was opposed to tax increases. He has even chastised the county fiscal court for raising fees and increasing the insurance premium tax. Don’t misunderstand me, I was opposed to all fee and tax increases but it just doesn’t seem right that Dodson was so critical of the fiscal court but did not seem to have a problem with raising the property tax rate for the schools.
It is not hard to understand why the members of the school board are not responsive to the public. There are two members up for reelection this year and both are unopposed. Frankly, the job pays next to nothing and carries a lot of responsibility. You would think though, that a county that prides itself in its education would be able to field some opposition to every incumbent. The real problem is that the people are happy as long as someone keeps telling them that they have the greatest school system in the state.
I have attended many school board meetings and it has always been obvious to me that the superintendent runs everything. That was also apparent at this meeting as the superintendent made the recommendation for the tax rate. I realize that a board hires someone to run the school system but the board is ultimately responsible for the actions of the superintendent.
Another interesting thing happened at the board meeting on Thursday evening. Each person who wanted to address the board was given five minutes to speak. I was one of the people who signed up to speak. Knowing that the building fund money cannot be commingled with the administrative money I asked the board if they could cut the building fund tax rate to reduce the impact of the tax increase for the general fund. I did not receive an answer to my question. As everyone knows the board has been buying a lot of property for future schools even though the schools are not overcrowded at this time and enrollment is not increasing. One might say that the board has been spending money like a drunken sailor except that a drunken sailor spends his own money – not yours and mine. Reducing one rate while raising the other would appear to be a sensible solution to their alleged problem. You can bet that the board will never reduce a tax rate though.
However, excuse me for digressing. Shortly after I began to speak I stated that I was bothered by the fact that a board member wanted to have his tax liability reduced but wanted to increase mine. Superintendent Upchurch decided at that point that I was criticizing a board member and that was not allowed. Therefore, he told me to stop speaking. Another example of who was running the show as Upchurch was giving the orders even though it was a Board of Education meeting. I quickly took notice that the chairwoman of the board, Joyce Flethcer, was not in charge. Not wanting to create a disturbance and distract from the other speakers I sat down. However, I can assure Mr. Upchurch that he will never stop me from speaking at another board meeting. I will totally ignore anything that he has to say. If he is not happy with that, we can discuss it in federal court. His presence is not necessary to have a board meeting.
In summary, I was not surprised that the board passed the tax increase. I had spoken with Larry Dodson earlier in the week about the proposed tax increase and he told me that the money was needed to hire more teachers and to give the staff a raise. That was reiterated by Upchurch at the meeting. Moreover, Dodson stated to me that Jefferson County had raised their rate by 29% as though that justified Oldham County raising its rate. The fact is that Jefferson County did not raise their rate by 29% but rather by a similar amount to Oldham County. This is not the first time that Mr. Dodson has appeared to confused about the facts.
It is worth mentioning that nobody that spoke was in favor of the tax increase. John Black spoke but he did not take a position on the issue. He was simply trying to ride the fence and to convince someone to vote for him. I might add that I stayed around for a few minutes after the meeting and listened to some of the crowd talk to each other. Judging from their comments, Black did not win any votes. Sorry John but that is the way I saw it.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
MAGISTRATE CHURCH TO CONTINUE TO SERVE ON THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE
I was advised today that Magistrate Steve Church will continue to serve on the Human Resources committee of the Oldham County Fiscal Court. It had been inferred at the last meeting on July 20, 2010 that he would be replaced by Magistrate Bob Leslie. Apparently Leslie will also remain on the committee and there will now be four members on the committee instead of three.
It is believed that Judge Duane Murner will clarify this issue at the next meeting of the fiscal court.
It is believed that Judge Duane Murner will clarify this issue at the next meeting of the fiscal court.
MANY REPUBLICANS ANGRY OVER GOP SELECTION PROCESS FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY NOMINEE
Recently the Oldham County GOP selected a nominee to replace John Fendley on the November 2010 ballot as the GOP candidate for Oldham County Attorney. I have received many calls from people questioning the process. Many people assumed that Galen Clark would be selected as the nominee since he had run for the nomination on two occasions and narrowly lost to incumbent John Fendley in the May 2010 primary. However, this was not the case. Attorney John Carter was selected by the GOP Executive Committee to be the nominee. To my knowledge none of the candidates were interviewed by the committee. The chairperson said that time did not permit that. I do not agree with that as there were only four candidates. I guess there is no need to interview if your mind is already made up.
First, let me make it clear that there are no rules that would dictate that Galen Clark should have been selected as the nominee. However, he did run for the nomination and barely lost to John Fendley. It is a fact that certain members of the Fendley family did not want Galen Clark to be the replacement on the GOP ticket for John Fendley. One might believe that the Republican Party owed something to John Fendley. The fact of the matter is, the Republican Party did not owe John Fendley anything. John Fendley was a Democrat until just before the 2006 elections. I personally heard John Fendley state to the Republican Party at a party meeting that he only switched to the Republican Party in order to be elected. At least he was honest. However, he was not a long-time Republican – he was an opportunist.
For the record, I supported Galen Clark in the May 2010 primary. However, after he lost, and the last time that I spoke with John Fendley, I told him that I would be supporting him in the November election and I told him that he was welcome to put a sign in my yard. I regret that I will not be able to do that because John Fendley earned the nomination. However, his family did not earn the nomination. Therefore, I thought that the nomination should have gone to Galen Clark.
Frankly, I believe that the Republican Party Executive Committee treated Galen Clark unfairly. If there was something in Galen Clark’s past that should have kept him from receiving the nomination, the information should have been made public. Further, Clark should have been given the opportunity to present his side of the story. Instead of Clark being given that opportunity the party sought John Carter to apply for the nomination. It is my understanding that there were four candidates, including Clark and Carter. One of the other candidates was Courtney Baxter whom current County Judge Executive Duane Murner had chosen to serve the remainder of the unexpired term of Fendley. That selection is a whole different story. Supposedly, Murner selected her instead of Clark or Stuart Ulferts, the democratic nominee, in order to keep politics out of the selection. It appears that he was trying to give Baxter a political advantage.
As stated before, the executive committee was not bound to select Clark, however to not select him was a slap in the face of almost fifty percent of the Republican voters who voted in the primary election in May. In essence, a nine member executive committee overruled half of the Republican voters of Oldham County. That showed a total lack of gratitude. Many Republicans in Oldham County have a right to be angry and, if what I am hearing is indicative of their anger, they are very angry.
If anyone on the executive committee knew something about Galen Clark that was so bad that he should not serve as County Attorney, and did not share it with the public before the primary election, that person would have been doing a disservice to all of the people in Oldham County, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
Politically speaking, the Republican Party had an opportunity to secure the office for many years to come due to Clark’s age. Instead the committee chose a candidate who will soon be sixty-six years old and unlikely to want to serve many years. Or could it have been that they wanted a candidate who would only serve only one term? That would give John Fendley’s son, Daniel, an opportunity to move to Oldham County and be qualified to run in 2014 without having to face an incumbent. With the way this selection was made anything is possible.
First, let me make it clear that there are no rules that would dictate that Galen Clark should have been selected as the nominee. However, he did run for the nomination and barely lost to John Fendley. It is a fact that certain members of the Fendley family did not want Galen Clark to be the replacement on the GOP ticket for John Fendley. One might believe that the Republican Party owed something to John Fendley. The fact of the matter is, the Republican Party did not owe John Fendley anything. John Fendley was a Democrat until just before the 2006 elections. I personally heard John Fendley state to the Republican Party at a party meeting that he only switched to the Republican Party in order to be elected. At least he was honest. However, he was not a long-time Republican – he was an opportunist.
For the record, I supported Galen Clark in the May 2010 primary. However, after he lost, and the last time that I spoke with John Fendley, I told him that I would be supporting him in the November election and I told him that he was welcome to put a sign in my yard. I regret that I will not be able to do that because John Fendley earned the nomination. However, his family did not earn the nomination. Therefore, I thought that the nomination should have gone to Galen Clark.
Frankly, I believe that the Republican Party Executive Committee treated Galen Clark unfairly. If there was something in Galen Clark’s past that should have kept him from receiving the nomination, the information should have been made public. Further, Clark should have been given the opportunity to present his side of the story. Instead of Clark being given that opportunity the party sought John Carter to apply for the nomination. It is my understanding that there were four candidates, including Clark and Carter. One of the other candidates was Courtney Baxter whom current County Judge Executive Duane Murner had chosen to serve the remainder of the unexpired term of Fendley. That selection is a whole different story. Supposedly, Murner selected her instead of Clark or Stuart Ulferts, the democratic nominee, in order to keep politics out of the selection. It appears that he was trying to give Baxter a political advantage.
As stated before, the executive committee was not bound to select Clark, however to not select him was a slap in the face of almost fifty percent of the Republican voters who voted in the primary election in May. In essence, a nine member executive committee overruled half of the Republican voters of Oldham County. That showed a total lack of gratitude. Many Republicans in Oldham County have a right to be angry and, if what I am hearing is indicative of their anger, they are very angry.
If anyone on the executive committee knew something about Galen Clark that was so bad that he should not serve as County Attorney, and did not share it with the public before the primary election, that person would have been doing a disservice to all of the people in Oldham County, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
Politically speaking, the Republican Party had an opportunity to secure the office for many years to come due to Clark’s age. Instead the committee chose a candidate who will soon be sixty-six years old and unlikely to want to serve many years. Or could it have been that they wanted a candidate who would only serve only one term? That would give John Fendley’s son, Daniel, an opportunity to move to Oldham County and be qualified to run in 2014 without having to face an incumbent. With the way this selection was made anything is possible.
MAGISTRATE CHURCH BECOMES SELECTIVE WITH HIS PARTICIPATION ON FISCAL COURT
In the fiscal court meeting on July 20, 2010 it was announced that Magistrate Steve Church had asked to be removed from the human resources committee since he would not be serving after December 2010. Magistrate Church was replaced with Magistrate Bob Leslie who will be an able replacement.
At the time that the announcement was made I thought that it was odd as elected officials, although defeated in either a primary or general election, usually continue to serve out their term in office and vote on issues that are brought before them. As far as I know Church did not resign from all of the committees on which he serves. Why did he just choose to resign from one committee? Later in the meeting County Judge Duane Murner nominated a replacement to the planning and zoning commission. Considering Magistrate Church’s position on being on the human resources committee, I thought that he might opt to not vote on anything that was going to have any effect after January 2011. As the commissioners are nominated for a four-year term, I thought perhaps Magistrate Church might opt to not vote on the nominee. However, Magistrate Church did vote to approve the nomination.
The question now is, will Magistrate Church abstain from voting on issues or matters that will continue to affect the county after he is out of office? It appears that he will just be selective with his participation on fiscal court.
If Magistrate Church considered his term completed or over when he was defeated in the May primary, why didn't he just resign at that time and save the taxpayers the cost of his salary? Frankly, I thought that he might either resign or miss a lot of meetings. After all, he did appear to feel that he was doing the residents of Oldham County a favor by serving.
At the time that the announcement was made I thought that it was odd as elected officials, although defeated in either a primary or general election, usually continue to serve out their term in office and vote on issues that are brought before them. As far as I know Church did not resign from all of the committees on which he serves. Why did he just choose to resign from one committee? Later in the meeting County Judge Duane Murner nominated a replacement to the planning and zoning commission. Considering Magistrate Church’s position on being on the human resources committee, I thought that he might opt to not vote on anything that was going to have any effect after January 2011. As the commissioners are nominated for a four-year term, I thought perhaps Magistrate Church might opt to not vote on the nominee. However, Magistrate Church did vote to approve the nomination.
The question now is, will Magistrate Church abstain from voting on issues or matters that will continue to affect the county after he is out of office? It appears that he will just be selective with his participation on fiscal court.
If Magistrate Church considered his term completed or over when he was defeated in the May primary, why didn't he just resign at that time and save the taxpayers the cost of his salary? Frankly, I thought that he might either resign or miss a lot of meetings. After all, he did appear to feel that he was doing the residents of Oldham County a favor by serving.
Monday, July 5, 2010
QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED TO FILL VACANT COUNTY ATTORNEY POSITION
Due to the recent untimely and unfortunate death of John Fendley, the position of Oldham County Attorney has become vacant, thereby making it necessary to fill the vacancy. Therefore, I thought this might be an appropriate time for discussion on the eligibility requirements for the person selected to fill the vacancy.
In the situation at hand, two separate selections must be made. First, someone must be selected to finish the unexpired term of John Fendley. The term expires at the end of 2010. This selection is made by the County Judge-Executive Duane Murner. Then, someone must be selected to replace John Fendley on the November ballot as the Republican nominee. This selection is made by the executive committee of the Oldham County Republican Party and must be made by 4:00 PM July 13, 2010.
Now what are the qualifications to be the County Attorney? §100 of the Kentucky constitution states as follows:
No person shall be eligible to the offices mentioned in Sections 97 and 99 who is not at the time of his election twenty-four years of age (except Clerks of County and Circuit Courts, who shall be twenty-one years of age), a citizen of Kentucky, and who has not resided in the State two years, and one year next preceding his election in the county and district in which he is a candidate. No person shall be eligible to the office of Commonwealth's Attorney unless he shall have been a licensed practicing lawyer four years. No person shall be eligible to the office of County Attorney unless he shall have been a licensed practicing lawyer two years. No person shall be eligible to the office of Clerk unless he shall have procured from a Judge of the Court of Appeals, or a Judge of a Circuit Court, a certificate that he has been examined by the Clerk of his Court under his supervision, and that he is qualified for the office for which he is a candidate (Emphasis added)
The language in the constitution is pretty clear cut and leaves little room for doubt. However, it does use the term “election” which might make some people believe that the qualifications might be different for someone appointed, rather than elected, to the position.
The question that arises is, do these same qualifications apply to a person appointed to the position of County Attorney? Common sense would say that the qualifications would be the same. After all, can you imagine having a County Attorney who was not of legal age or one who was not an attorney? Thus, if one of the requirements is necessary, it would follow that all of the requirements must be satisfied by the appointee. I was unable to find anything in the Kentucky constitution, the Kentucky Revised Statutes, or the Kentucky Administrative Regulations that addressed the qualifications of an appointee. However, I did find an opinion of the Kentucky Attorney General, OAG 67-223, that states that A person appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of County Attorney must possess the qualifications at time of appointment.
Obviously the name of Galen Clark has been mentioned as the possible appointee to the position as he has sought the position on two prior occasions and narrowly lost to Fendley in the May 18, 2010 primary. Assuming that he is qualified for the position pursuant to the constitution, which I believe that he is, I will focus on other segments of Kentucky law.
§ 118.345 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes states as follows:
• No candidate who has been defeated for the nomination for any office in a primary election shall have his name placed on voting machines in the succeeding regular election as a candidate for the same office for the nomination to which he was a candidate in the primary election, except that if a vacancy occurs in the party nomination for which he was a candidate in the primary election his name may be placed on voting machines for the regular election as a candidate of that party if he has been duly made such party nominee after the vacancy occurs as provided in KRS 118.105 (Emphasis added)
§ KRS 118.105 (3) states:
• If a vacancy occurs in the nomination of an unopposed candidate or in a nomination made by the primary before the certification of candidates for the regular election made under KRS 118.215, because of death, disqualification to hold the office sought, or severe disabling condition which arose after the nomination, the governing authority of the party may provide for filling the vacancy, but only following certification to the governing authority, by the Secretary of State, that a vacancy exists for a reason specified in this subsection. When such a nomination has been made, the certificate of nomination shall be signed by the chairman and secretary of the governing authority of the party making it, and shall be filed in the same manner as certificates of nomination at a primary election. (Emphasis added)
In view of this, I believe that Galen Clark would be eligible to be the nominee of the Republican Party on the November ballot notwithstanding his defeat in the May primary.
Now, if you are wondering who the next County Attorney will be, just think of the attorneys that you know who reside in Oldham County, who meet all of the requirements, and would be interested in serving in such a position.
In the situation at hand, two separate selections must be made. First, someone must be selected to finish the unexpired term of John Fendley. The term expires at the end of 2010. This selection is made by the County Judge-Executive Duane Murner. Then, someone must be selected to replace John Fendley on the November ballot as the Republican nominee. This selection is made by the executive committee of the Oldham County Republican Party and must be made by 4:00 PM July 13, 2010.
Now what are the qualifications to be the County Attorney? §100 of the Kentucky constitution states as follows:
No person shall be eligible to the offices mentioned in Sections 97 and 99 who is not at the time of his election twenty-four years of age (except Clerks of County and Circuit Courts, who shall be twenty-one years of age), a citizen of Kentucky, and who has not resided in the State two years, and one year next preceding his election in the county and district in which he is a candidate. No person shall be eligible to the office of Commonwealth's Attorney unless he shall have been a licensed practicing lawyer four years. No person shall be eligible to the office of County Attorney unless he shall have been a licensed practicing lawyer two years. No person shall be eligible to the office of Clerk unless he shall have procured from a Judge of the Court of Appeals, or a Judge of a Circuit Court, a certificate that he has been examined by the Clerk of his Court under his supervision, and that he is qualified for the office for which he is a candidate (Emphasis added)
The language in the constitution is pretty clear cut and leaves little room for doubt. However, it does use the term “election” which might make some people believe that the qualifications might be different for someone appointed, rather than elected, to the position.
The question that arises is, do these same qualifications apply to a person appointed to the position of County Attorney? Common sense would say that the qualifications would be the same. After all, can you imagine having a County Attorney who was not of legal age or one who was not an attorney? Thus, if one of the requirements is necessary, it would follow that all of the requirements must be satisfied by the appointee. I was unable to find anything in the Kentucky constitution, the Kentucky Revised Statutes, or the Kentucky Administrative Regulations that addressed the qualifications of an appointee. However, I did find an opinion of the Kentucky Attorney General, OAG 67-223, that states that A person appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of County Attorney must possess the qualifications at time of appointment.
Obviously the name of Galen Clark has been mentioned as the possible appointee to the position as he has sought the position on two prior occasions and narrowly lost to Fendley in the May 18, 2010 primary. Assuming that he is qualified for the position pursuant to the constitution, which I believe that he is, I will focus on other segments of Kentucky law.
§ 118.345 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes states as follows:
• No candidate who has been defeated for the nomination for any office in a primary election shall have his name placed on voting machines in the succeeding regular election as a candidate for the same office for the nomination to which he was a candidate in the primary election, except that if a vacancy occurs in the party nomination for which he was a candidate in the primary election his name may be placed on voting machines for the regular election as a candidate of that party if he has been duly made such party nominee after the vacancy occurs as provided in KRS 118.105 (Emphasis added)
§ KRS 118.105 (3) states:
• If a vacancy occurs in the nomination of an unopposed candidate or in a nomination made by the primary before the certification of candidates for the regular election made under KRS 118.215, because of death, disqualification to hold the office sought, or severe disabling condition which arose after the nomination, the governing authority of the party may provide for filling the vacancy, but only following certification to the governing authority, by the Secretary of State, that a vacancy exists for a reason specified in this subsection. When such a nomination has been made, the certificate of nomination shall be signed by the chairman and secretary of the governing authority of the party making it, and shall be filed in the same manner as certificates of nomination at a primary election. (Emphasis added)
In view of this, I believe that Galen Clark would be eligible to be the nominee of the Republican Party on the November ballot notwithstanding his defeat in the May primary.
Now, if you are wondering who the next County Attorney will be, just think of the attorneys that you know who reside in Oldham County, who meet all of the requirements, and would be interested in serving in such a position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)